University Wants Students To Stop Using ‘He’ And ‘She’…Wants Them To Say This Unbelievable Thing Instead

The University of Tennessee has a new scheme to cure what ails a world filled with “homophobia” and gender confusions by ordering staff and students to stop using the words “he” and “she” and instead use fantasy pronouns like “xe,” “zir,” and “xyr.”

As the new school year gears up, university students are already finding that indoctrination instead of education is on tap at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, where some 27,000 students are discovering the new speech codes are being pushed by a “gay rights official” at the school.

The goal, this official claims, is to make the school a “welcoming and inclusive” place where students won’t feel “marginalized.”

The new speech codes were revealed by the school’s “office for diversity and inclusion” on Wednesday; they warned students not to “assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems.”

The fantasy pronouns were written by Donna Braquet, a gay rights official at the university, and includes such fantastic made-up words as “zhem” in place of them, “hirs” instead of hers, and “xem” instead of him.

Anticipating that these new words are impossible to make sense of, Braquet helpfully included instructions on how to ascertain which strange pronoun someone might want “hir” fellows to use.

Braquet insisted that every time a student meets someone new, they are to ask for guidance. “‘Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask,” she says in the new speech code.

Not everyone thinks this wild new scheme with its many complicated phrases and odd new words is a great idea.

“It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” State Senator Mae Beavers, R-17th District) told Fox News. “If you must interview a student before you greet the student, that’s not acceptance–that’s just absurd.”

“The idea a child would want to be called by a gender neutral term is absolutely ridiculous,” she added. “It’s getting so crazy in this country.”

“This isn’t inclusion. This is the radical transformation of our lives and language,” Beavers concluded.

After ridicule was heaped upon the university over this new speech code scheme, a university spokesman hastened to say that the new pronouns weren’t mandatory.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

This Atheist Group Just Demanded Something So Shocking, It’ll Make Your Blood Boil

Image for representational purposes only.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has sent letters to multiple public universities demanding that they end their sports team chaplaincies.

The group recently released a lengthy report arguing why chaplains should not be permitted at universities funded by the public. FFRF says the purpose of its report is to “expose this unconstitutional system, encourage universities to fix it, and stimulate further efforts to protect students’ rights of conscience.”

“No matter how chaplaincies are set up, the chaplains are treated as an official part of the university and team. Chaplains often attend team events, host team chapel services, lead teams in prayers, travel with the team, patrol the sideline, wear team apparel, have special access to coaches and players, help with recruiting, and have athletic department offices,” according to the FFRF. 

The group further contends that “coaches are converting playing fields into mission fields and public universities are doing nothing to halt this breach of trust. They are failing their student athletes.”

FFRF has sent out multiple letters, along with the report, to public universities including Auburn, the University of South Carolina, University of Missouri Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Clemson, and Georgia demanding they end their chaplaincy programs or face possible legal action, AL.com reports.

In its letter to Auburn, FFRF writes: “It makes no difference if the chaplain is unofficial, not school-sponsored, or a volunteer, because chaplains are given access to the team as a means for coaches to impose religion, usually Christianity, on their players. Under the circumstances, the chaplain’s actions are attributable to the university and those actions are unconstitutional.”

“To prevent lawsuits, FFRF recommends that public universities adopt a ‘model policy in which a ‘character coach’ or a ‘player development coach’ replaces the chaplain in instilling secular values such as respect, perseverance, humility, sportsmanship, and teamwork,” 800Whistleblower reports

FFRF makes clear such character development coaches would be “explicitly prohibited from promoting a particular religious viewpoint, pressuring student-athletes to choose religion over non-religion, or directly or indirectly coercing student-athletes to participate in any type of religious activity.”

“Qualified candidates should have training in psychology, psychiatry, sports psychology, secular therapy, or a substantially equivalent field. FFRF insists that mere ‘divinity or religious counseling experience’ does not qualify a person to hold the character development position,” 800Whistleblower recounts. 

Auburn University released a short statement Thursday responding to FFRF’s letter: “Chaplains are common in many public institutions, including the US Congress. The football team chaplain isn’t an Auburn employee, and participation in activities he leads are voluntary.”

How successful the FFRF would be if it sued schools for having sports chaplains is not clear. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of having taxpayer-funded chaplains for legislative bodies such as the U.S. Congress, and federal courts have done so for the military.

The Supreme Court has also recognized the right of students to voluntarily gather and pray at public school sporting events and during the school day, under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause; though, the court has ruled students cannot offer corporate prayers at sporting events over public address systems.

Do you believe public universities should end their sports chaplaincies? Please share your thoughts below. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Students Gave Teacher THIS Nickname That Absolutely Made Sense Once She Was Caught

An investigation is ongoing regarding sexual harassment allegations against a department head at a New York high school, but students said officials should have done that a long time ago.

Students who knew Valley Stream North High School teacher and department head Cecilia Sanossian had a nickname for her: ‘Toucher.’ Students at the Franklin Square school said Sanossian had been way too touchy with them for years.

“If I raised my hand to answer a question, she would say, ‘Good job’ and rub circles on my back and just linger there,” student Jesse DiMeglio told the New York Post.

DiMeglio said Sanossian would also sit on his desk and then lean forward so that her buttocks would be toward him. One school graduate, Peter Wilk, said the teacher’s actions made him uncomfortable.

“She was rubbing my back and calling me ‘sweetie,’ and it definitely felt weird,” Wilk said.

Surprisingly, Sanossian isn’t being investigated for her alleged behavior toward students. She is also accused of sexually harassing male co-workers. Several teachers filed a complaint alleging Sanossian had inappropriate physical contact and made offensive comments to others. The Valley Stream School District is conducting an internal probe, and the New York State Human Rights Division is also investigating.

“The district is aware of the allegations and is conducting an internal investigation. Due to matters of personnel, the district is not offering any further comment at this time,” according to a statement issued from the school district.

The district has no more comments on the matter and sent inquiries to public relations spokesperson Deirdre Gilligan with Syntax Communication Group. Gilligan was not available for comment. It is uncertain whether Sanossian is allowed to continue to teach during the investigation. She has not commented on the allegations.

Social studies teacher John Brennan said he and others decided to file the complaint after administration did nothing to end the harassment. The group informed school administrators of their co-worker’s behavior in 2014 and numerous other times, but Brennan said nothing was done. Brennan said the last incident with Sanossian pushed him past the breaking point.

Brennan said he had a sinus infection and wasn’t feeling well.

“And as she started massaging me — on my back and shoulders, across my neck line — and I said, ‘Could you please stop that?’” he said.

Another teacher, Al Daddino, said the female teacher threatened him with statements that her husband would “put my head on the wall.”

Brennan said enough is enough.

“I’m mentally fatigued, emotionally fatigued, physically fatigued, spiritually fatigued,” he said.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

She Couldn’t Find A Job For 4 Years After Graduating…Here’s What She’s Doing With Her Diploma Now

A Florida State University graduate has a unique idea for trying to retire her student loan debt, which is apparently over $40,000: sell her diploma on eBay.

Stephanie Ritter, who graduated cum laude from FSU in 2011 with a B.A. in Theatre, wrote on the eBay page where she is selling her diploma that she has not been able to secure a job in her field since graduating. She currently works as a personal assistant in Los Angeles.

“I thought this piece of paper has so much worth to so many people, but for a theater major, it couldn’t mean less,” Ritter told BuzzFeed Wednesday. “I’m doing the exact same things and probably getting paid the exact same amount as people that dropped out halfway through freshman year, except I’m still $40,000 in debt and they’re, well, not.”

Ritter is selling the diploma for $50,000, the actual price of her four years at FSU. Not only is Ritter selling her diploma, but her entire college experience. This includes, in part:

A TOUR of Florida State University including everywhere you would have gone/eaten/partied in four years at FSU. 

A show at the FSU School of Theatre (on opening night if time permits!)

Ritter will rent a car and show off the best view of the capitol building 

A walking tour of the theatre where Ritter performed How I Learned to Drive.

A driving tour of the spots she got speeding tickets in between classes

IF timing permits, AN AUTHENTIC FSU HOME FOOTBALL OR BASEBALL GAME!

Ritter pointed out that to earn the degree, she had to take Theatre History I, II and III, “which have not served [her] well in the real world.” She also took Sexuality and Representation in the Modern Theatre, Playwriting, Play Analysis, Stage Combat, Shakespeare, Stage Makeup, Set Design, Costuming, Voice & Movement, Math for Geniuses, and Geology.

As of 5 p.m. EDT, the diploma had 236 views per hour, with 203 watching the bid. Seven inquiries had been made about the diploma.

h/t: Daily Mail

Would you do the same thing if you were in Stephanie Ritter’s situation? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary Clinton’s ‘New College Compact’ Raises An Important Question: Did She Ever Take Econ 101?

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at Forbes.com.

Today’s version of “a chicken in every pot” is Hillary Clinton’s proposed plan to “make college affordable and available to every American.” This is political catnip, pure and simple. And it is a more delusory form of catnip than Herbert Hoover’s “chicken”; for while everybody needs enough to eat, not everybody needs to go to college.

There is today an oversupply of college degrees. A Federal Reserve study found that half of recent graduates were working in jobs that didn’t require a college degree or not employed at all. For Mrs. Clinton to propose spending $350 billion to subsidize college attendance will exacerbate rather than reduce the glut of college-educated Americans. To propose such wastefulness when federal debt already exceeds $18 trillion is fiscally irresponsible and a slap at American taxpayers. It will also increase the number of graduates experiencing disillusionment when they realize the lack of market demand for their degrees.

The increasingly overt socialistic nature of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign theme is glaringly evident in her “New College Compact.” She laments: “For too long, families have been left to bear the burden of crushing costs” of a college education. Heaven forbid that Americans be expected to pay for what they consume! (A quick “thank you” here to those whose generosity funds academic scholarships to highly qualified and motivated students from poor backgrounds.) Who does Mrs. Clinton think should pay if not the consumer? Her plan explicitly specifies that the federal and state governments (i.e., the taxpayer) should foot the bill at public universities and colleges.

Along with state financing, Hillary Clinton advocates increased state control. She thinks that government should micro-manage post-secondary institutions by telling colleges where they must spend their money (less on administrative expenses), commanding colleges to accept junior college credits (regardless of the four-year colleges’ own academic standards), and deciding when to waive accreditation standards.

Clinton’s disfavor of the private sector is obvious: She expresses sympathy for students with “an expensive degree from a for-profit institution,” only to find that a degree doesn’t lead to a job. Why single out graduates of for-profit colleges and universities when the same disappointment befalls many graduates of not-for-profit institutions, too? And why should students who agree to work for government receive earlier cancellation of their debts than private-sector workers? That’s a double-whammy on the taxpayer, whose taxes first would subsidize the student’s education and then pay the student’s salary after college. And why is it necessary for government to make sure that community colleges offer more “two-year degrees and certificate programs that are valued by employers”? Why can’t private educational entrepreneurs survey the marketplace to discern what degrees and certificates are valued and then profit by providing them?

As for the horrendous problem of college debt blunting the lives of millions of younger Americans, Clinton doesn’t acknowledge that the federal loan program is responsible. If she were not so ideologically averse to the private sector, she might see privatization of the college loan market as the solution. First, though, bankruptcy laws should be revised to include college debt. It is anomalous and unjust to allow mature adults with decades of business experience to erase their debts via bankruptcy if they make a miscalculation, but to deny such mercy and financial relief to young, inexperienced adults. If private lenders issued college loans, and they knew that bankruptcy was an option for young borrowers, then those lenders would calculate that risk. They wouldn’t lend tens of thousands of dollars to students floundering for five or six years or students taking courses that have little value to the job marketplace, and so the glut of over-educated/under-employed young people would shrink.

There is one aspect of Clinton’s higher education plan that makes some ethical, if not economic, sense. Ethically speaking, it seems unfair for the Fed to have engineered low borrowing costs for Uncle Sam while at the same time not sharing some of its windfall by refinancing student debt at lower rates. (Many students are still paying off loans at seven, eight, or nine percent.)

Economically speaking, though, Hillary Clinton has no business promising that the federal government “won’t profit off student loans.” While “profit” apparently is a dirty word to Clinton, any loan program should generate enough interest income to pay for the salaries, offices, etc., of those administering the loan. If the federal college loan program doesn’t cover its own costs, then, once again, the long-suffering taxpayer gets stuck with those costs. The economically rational approach is to let the private sector figure out what an economically viable loan market for college education looks like. Economic losses to our society would decline by billions if privatization of student loans supplanted the socialistic status quo.

The New College Compact proposed by Hillary Clinton is economically wasteful central planning, all wrapped up in the beguiling garb of Santa Claus politics. Caveat emptor. Let the buyer (in this case, the American taxpayer and voter) beware. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth